Cockcroft-Gault is better than the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease study formula at predicting outcome after a myocardial infarction: Data from the Swedish Web-system for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-based care in Heart disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies (SWEDEHEART) - 05/08/11
for SWEDEHEART
Résumé |
Background |
The aim was to examine whether the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) or the Cockcroft-Gault (CG) formula is better at predicting prognosis in myocardial infarction (MI) patients.
Methods |
All consecutive MI patients entered in a nationwide registry between 2003 and 2006 with glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) estimated by both the MDRD and CG formula (N = 36,137) were analyzed.
Results |
Cockcroft-Gault classified a larger proportion of patients as having at least a moderate (39.8% vs 31.1%, P < .001) or at least a severe renal dysfunction (7.6% vs 4.4%, P < .001) compared with the MDRD. The largest difference between the estimations was seen when patients were divided according to gender, age, and weight, where CG estimated a lower eGFR in women, the elderly, and those with low body weight. In a receiver operating characteristic analysis, CG had a stronger association to 1-year mortality (area under the curve 0.78, 95% CI 0.77-0.79) than MDRD (area under the curve 0.73, 95% CI 0.72-0.74). Within each renal function stage classified with the MDRD, there were patients identified with the CG as having both a worse renal function and a higher mortality. After multivariable adjustment, CG predicted 1-year mortality better than the MDRD (renal failure vs normal renal function: hazard ratio 3.00, 95% CI 2.42-3.71 with the CG; hazard ratio 2.56, 95% CI 2.10-3.11 with the MDRD).
Conclusion |
Cockcroft-Gault is better than the MDRD equation at predicting mortality after a MI. This is mainly explained by differences in the coefficients and variables included in the eGFR equations, and less to differences in various subgroups of patients.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Plan
Vol 159 - N° 6
P. 979-986 - juin 2010 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?